CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
From: Dave/KA1NCN <dave@ka1n.cn>
Reply-to: dave@ka1n.cn
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
What is a ?waste? in a contest is a matter of perspective.  Is QTC in WAE a 
waste?  Is the zone in CQWW a waste?  Is the callsign a waste given that some 
people seem to be getting the call off of packet?  It all depends upon what the 
mission of the contest is.

Unlike statutes, which require legislative actions to change (as well as 
executive action in the US), contest committees can change rules quite quickly. 
Anyone operating Field Day will notice considerable changes in the rules this 
year.  Because the rules are relatively few in number, there is little chance 
that a change to one rule will unexpectedly impact the operation of another.  

Here is my suggestion: Operators should start giving honest RS(t)s.  This 
means, that only the most readable of signals will get 5s.  The operator will 
also have to look at his S-meter to determine what signal strength he is.  The 
adjudicators can presume that a log with all 59s sent is not actually filled 
with bona-fide exchanges. 

So, how about handing out a few ?3x1s? or ?4x7s? folks?  

73,   Dave/KA1NCN     Dave@ka1n.cn


       
---------------------------------
OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends: Get A Month of Blockbuster Total 
Access, No Cost. W00t
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>